DOCSLIB.ORG

Dog Parks and Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dog Parks and Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Fall 12-20-2017 Responsible Pet Ownership: Dog Parks and Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon Matthew Harris Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Urban Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Harris, Matthew, "Responsible Pet Ownership: Dog Parks and Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4151. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6039 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Responsible Pet Ownership: Dog Parks and Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon by Matthew Harris A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Studies in Urban Studies Thesis Committee: Marisa Zapata, Chair Lisa Bates Matthew Gebhardt Portland State University 2017 ABSTRACT Dog parks are the fastest growing type of park in U.S. cities; however, their increasing popularity has been met with increasing criticism of pets in public space. Dogs have shown to be a deep source of neighborhood conflict, and the provision of dog parks, or off-leash areas, is a seemingly intractable controversy for city officials. In 2003, Portland, Oregon established a network of 33 off-leash areas which remains the second largest both in count and per capita in the country. The purpose of my research is to understand the public debate over off leash dogs during the establishment of Portland’s off-leash area network, and how dog parks relate to processes of demographic change. The analysis involved two phases. First, I conducted a thematic analysis of editorial perspectives published in the major local newspaper. Second, I conducted an exploratory spatial analysis of the distribution of Portland’s off-leash areas and patterns of racial and economic change throughout the city from 2000 to 2015. Central to the debate are conflicting notions of responsible pet ownership. The notions of responsibility employed in the debate are primarily personal, yet the findings from my exploratory analysis of the relationship between dog parks and demographic change suggest a need to attend to notions of public responsibility. I am not arguing that dog parks explain demographic change; however, I am advocating that future research, discussion, representations, and policy regarding dog parks consider the consequences of off-leash areas as amenities within the changing neighborhoods in which they exist. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank a few of the people who helped make this work possible. First, I must thank my wife Julie for all of her patience, support, and inspiration, and our daughter Rita for motivating me to keep on track. Dr. Zapata, my committee chair, for all the opportunities, experience, and conversations she offered. My thesis writing group for our weekly support and discussions: Amy Marion, Aaron Johnson, Austin Cummings, Nick Chun, and Justin Ward. Dr. Adiv who helped shaped this project at its earliest stage, as well as Dr. Bates and Dr. Gebhardt, my other committee members, for their time and thoughtful feedback. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: DOG PARKS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE .......................................... 5 Dog Parks and Off-Leash Areas ................................................................................................... 6 Neighborhood Change ................................................................................................................. 14 Dog Parks and Neighborhood Change ....................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 3: DOG PARKS IN PORTLAND .......................................................................... 25 Portland’s Off-Leash Area Program.......................................................................................... 26 Portland’s Neighborhoods and Off-Leash Areas ...................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 39 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 48 The Off-Leash Area Debate ........................................................................................................ 48 Dog Parks and Neighborhood Change ....................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 73 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 84 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 87 APPENDIX A: EDITORIAL ANALYSIS DATASET ............................................................. 92 APPENDIX B: EDITORIAL ANALYSIS CODE LIST AND DESCRIPTIONS ................ 111 APPENDIX C: PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE METHODOLOGY ............. 113 APPENDIX D: OFF-LEASH AREA RACE AND INCOME CENSUS DATA ................... 116 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Average proportions of white population and median household income change for categories of demographic change for block groups containing off-leash areas (2000-2015)....................................................................................................................... 67 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Block Group Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon (2000-2015)............. 33 Figure 2: Off-Leash Areas and Block Group Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon (2000-2015)....................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 3: Complaints of Off Leash Dogs and Block Group Demographic Change in Portland, Oregon (2000-2015) .......................................................................................... 70 v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Dog parks are the fastest growing type of park in U.S. cities (Trust for Public Land 2015); however, their increasing popularity has been met with increasing criticism of pets in public space. Dogs have shown to be a deep source of neighborhood conflict (Tissot 2011; Drew 2011), and the provision of dog parks, or off-leash areas, is a seemingly intractable controversy for city officials (Thompson 2001). While dog parks are certainly beneficial, the benefits are not experienced universally; they are amenities for some and a disturbance or threat to others (Urbanik and Morgan 2013). Given these contentions, and the close relationship between humans and their companion animals, the literature on dog parks is surprisingly scant. I identify the majority of literature on dog parks as dog-centric because it privileges dogs, dog owners, and dog parks in the assumptions and framings of the politics and uses of off-leash areas. Research in the disciplines of landscape design, public health, and human-animal studies seeks to improve the user benefits of dog parks (Lee et al. 2009), and tends to conceive of conflicting uses and claims to public space as obstacles to the unquestioned benefit and public good of off-leash areas (Wolch and Rowe 1992; Walsh 2011). Dog-centric literature situates the history of dog parks within an uncomplicated narrative of morally just off-leash activism (Krohe 2005), and investigates a politics of place narrowly focused on whether or not dogs belong in particular public spaces (Instone and Mee 2011). In contrast to the dog-centric perspective, recent urban studies research explores the relationship between dog parks and broader urban social processes. This perspective 1 critiques the racial and economic privilege of dog owners and the forms and tactics of off-leash advocacy and activism (Nast 2006a; Holmberg 2013), it examines how racialized urban space informs the location of dog parks (Nast 2006a), and it investigates a politics of place beyond the off-leash area to address demographic change, social exclusion, and political displacement (Tissot 2011; Hyra 2015). Dog parks are not an inherent feature of the urban landscape; they emerged throughout the 1990s and 2000s as a spatial accommodation to assuage community complaints of off leash dogs in cities. Dog parks are an urban phenomenon, but the majority of the research and public debate around their production and maintenance focus narrowly on the physical space of the off-leash area at the expense of adequately
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    APPENDIX B4.2 – LAND USE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Existing Land Uses Existing land uses are shown on Figures B4.2‐1 to B4.2‐3, which include the ½‐mile study areas surrounding the potential stations as well as the ¼‐mile study areas on each side of the alignment alternatives. Segment A begins in the southern end of downtown Portland, the central city of the region, includes the South Waterfront District and extends south to the Hillsdale neighborhood. Existing land use here has been historically influenced and constrained by the presence of SW Barbur Boulevard (formerly a rail line) and the Willamette River, and more recently by the development of Interstates 5 and 205 (I‐5 and I‐205) as well as SW Naito Parkway. The northern portion of this segment is an extension of the central city (downtown) in its more densely developed blocks, and is similar in feel to other neighborhoods in the southern downtown area. The southern section of Segment A is dominated by auto‐oriented uses separated by parking lots and driveways. Properties on SW Barbur Boulevard are predominantly zoned for general commercial uses, and are developed with many auto‐oriented uses separated by parking lots and driveways. The zoning along SW Barbur Boulevard includes a mixture of commercial, open space and residential uses on the northern edge, transitioning to primarily multifamily and single‐family housing through the steep and wooded area, and then mostly low‐density commercial for the remainder of the corridor heading south to Tigard. Along SW Barbur Boulevard, existing land uses include auto‐oriented low‐ density commercial uses involving offices, personal services, and retail, followed by restaurants, apartments, auto‐specific uses (mechanics, tire and oil centers, body shops) and hotels.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Steps to Pesticide-Free Parks: How to Create Healthy Public Spaces in Your Community
    Ten Steps to Pesticide-free Parks: How to Create Healthy Public Spaces in Your Community Arbor Lodge is one of Portland, Oregon’s first pesticide-free parks. www.pesticide.org 0 Table of Contents Introduction: Ten Steps To Pesticide-free Parks…2 1. Connect With Others Who Share Your Interest In Pesticide-free Parks…3 2. Set Goals And Clarify What The Group Wants…4 3. Identify And Meet With Parks Staff To Measure Support For Your Goals…5 4. Gather More Support From The Community To Gain Visibility…6 5. Launch A Campaign To Influence The Decision Makers …7 6. Once The Program Concept Is Approved, Work With Parks Staff To Design A Program That Has Community And Agency Support…9 7. Put The Program In Writing…10 8. Train and Support Your Program Volunteers…11 9. Plan A Community Event With Parks Staff To Kick Off The Program And Celebrate!...12 10. Moving Forward With Your Program…13 Appendix A-J …15 1 Introduction: Ten Steps to Pesticide-free Parks The pesticide-free parks movement is growing! People want places they can go with their children and pets where they won’t be exposed to pesticides. There are new pesticide-free parks programs sprouting up all over the northwest! Just five years ago, only a few cities in the northwest had established pesticide-free parks programs. Now at least 17 cities in the northwest have parks that are managed without the use of any pesticides — including insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. As more and more community members become interested in pesticide-free public spaces, parks departments are responding by designating parks where vegetation is managed without herbicides.
    [Show full text]
  • Outside-In-History.Pdf
    By Anndee Hochman Cover design, book design and illustration by Melissa Delzio: meldel.com copyright August 2018 1132 SW 13th Avenue Portland, OR 97205 [email protected] CHAPTER 1: THE STRAIGHT AND THE STREET ...........................................................2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 2: RUNAWAYS AND THROWAWAYS .............................................................8 CHAPTER 3: OPINIONS AND NEEDLES ............................................................................16 CHAPTER 4: THE ART OF ADVOCACY .............................................................................22 CHAPTER 5: IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH ............................................................... 28 CHAPTER 6: CULTURE CLASH AND COLLABORATION ...........................................36 CHAPTER 7: MOVING IN, MOVING UP .............................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 8: GIFTS AND GROWING PAINS ....................................................................52 CHAPTER 9: HEROIN AND HARM REDUCTION ........................................................... 58 CHAPTER 10: LOST AND FOUND .......................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 11: THE CHANGE-MAKER................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER 12: AFTER ALL THESE YEARS ........................................................................ 76 A YEAR IN THE LIFE: KATHY OLIVER’S OUTSIDE IN JOURNAL .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Facilities Maintenance Employers - USA
    www.Jobcorpsbook.org - Facilities Maintenance Employers - USA Company Business Street City State Zip Phone Fax Web Page Neighborworks Anchorage 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage AK 99503 (907) 677-8490 http://www.nwanchorage.org Southside Seniors 9480 Morningside Loop Anchorage AK 99515 (907) 522-6393 Birchwood Homes 1066 Turnagin Loop Fairbanks AK 99701 (907) 356-1616 http://www.birchwoodhomesak.com River Point Village 2595 Chief William Drive Fairbanks AK 99709 (907) 374-1642 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 3410 Foster Avenue Juneau AK 99801 (907) 586-3750 (907) 463-4967 http://www.ahfc.state.ak.us Bayview Terrace 309 Erskine Kodiak AK 99615 (907) 486-4733 Weeks Apartments 217 W 2nd Avenue Nome AK 99762 (907) 443-3194 Marine View Apartments 1306 N Nordic Petersburg AK 99833 (907) 772-2330 TrimPro llc 2149 CHURCH RIDGE DR. Wasilla AK 99654 (907) 299-0850 (907) 373-7811 Adams Crossing 73 Angela Circle Albertville AL 35951 (256) 894-7500 Greystone 1655 Creekwood Trail Auburn AL 36830 (334) 705-0173 (334) 740-0647 http://www.thegreystonemansion.com Lemans Square Apartments 560 Perry Auburn AL 36830 (334) 821-9192 http://www.lemanssquare.com Flint Hill Pointe Apartments 600 Flint Hill Lane Bessemer AL 35022 (205) 425-1919 Ahepa 3 Senior Apartments Service 3320 Old Columbiana Road Birmingham AL 35226 (205) 978-8809 Branchwater Apartments 901 Old Forest Rd. Birmingham AL 35243 (888) 259-6074 Eagle Ridge Apartments One Eagle Ridge Drive Birmingham AL 35242 (888) 305-9599 Emerald Pointe Apartments 2149 Emerald Pointe Drive Birmingham AL 35216
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Behavior Study of Diurnal Tree
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 8-8-1977 Distribution and Behavior Study of Diurnal Tree Squirrels in Portland, Oregon, with Emphasis on the Western Gray Squirrel (Saiurus grieeus griseus Ord) and the Western Fox Squirrel (S. niger rufiventer E. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire) Ira Young Rice Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Rice, Ira Young, "Distribution and Behavior Study of Diurnal Tree Squirrels in Portland, Oregon, with Emphasis on the Western Gray Squirrel (Saiurus grieeus griseus Ord) and the Western Fox Squirrel (S. niger rufiventer E. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire)" (1977). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2541. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2539 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Ira Young Rice, III for the Master of Science in Biology presented 8 August 1977. Title: Distribution and Behavior Study of Diurnal Tree Squirrels in Portland, Oregon, with Emphasis on the Western Gray Squirrel (Saiurus grieeus griseus Ord) and the Western Fox Squirrel (S. niger rufiventer E. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire) APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: J01Ui ---I T'T'V- , • rice 2 Populations of diurnal tree squirrels in the Portland area were located by mail surveys, personal interviews, and field inspections.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Portland's Neighborhood System
    Many of us who are neighborhood activists today wonder about why and how Portland's neighborhood system was created. PSU Professor Carl Abbott presents a very informative and readable description of the origins of Portland's neighborhood system in Chapter 9 of his excellent history of planning in Portland: Portland: Planning, Politics, and Growth in a Twentieth-Century, published in 1983. The chapter describes "Portland's political revolution" in the 1960s and early 1970s in which community members first organized to stop destruction of their older neighborhoods as part of urban renewal plans of the time and then to champion revitalization of these neighborhoods. Southeast Uplift was created in 1968 as part of this community empowerment movement. Understanding these origins helps us all understand some of the underlying tensions in the system today and the often very different organizational cultures in different parts of the city. Neighborhood activists may find that the descriptions of struggles between city government, development interests and community members still ring true today. The current struggle by community members to ensure a strong community voice in the development of the Portland Plan (the review and updating of Portland's Comprehensive Plan) echoes many similar struggles and controversies around the creation of the original Comprehensive Plan in the late 1970s. Some terms Abbott uses for different types of neighborhoods may be unfamiliar. He defines and maps these neighborhoods types in Chapter 1: --"stopover neighborhoods": the inner neighborhoods around the central downtown that offered cheap housing for transient workers, European immigrants, and different minority populations; these were Portland's highest density neighborhoods (parts of NW, neighborhoods south of downtown, inner SE neighborhoods by the river, neighborhoods in NE along MLK) --"everyday neighborhoods": many of the neighborhoods in North Portland and SE Portland west of 82nd.
    [Show full text]
  • South Portland Historic District______Other Names/Site Number
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properti 55 and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name South Portland Historic District_______________________________ other names/site number 2. Location street & number Multiple Properties______ _____ N/A not for publication city or town ___Portland__________________ ___ N/A vicinity state _______Oregon_______ code OR county Multnomah________ code 051 zip code 97201 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this E nomination d request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [x] meets HH does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant EH natioprally [Ustatev^cfe^^] locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Westside Central City Urban Renewal Study
    Preliminary Westside Central City Urban Renewal Study Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability April 24, 2009 DRAFT Disclaimer The City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) with support from the Portland Development Commission (PDC) commissioned this study to help inform future decision-making regarding the feasibility of future urban renewal activity on the west side of central Portland. BPS asked ECONorthwest (ECO) to evaluate four subdistricts in the west side of the central city for their viability in forming one or more new urban renewal areas. By gathering information about possible future private development that might generate tax increment revenue, preliminarily identifying public infrastructure projects that could catalyze redevelopment in the area, and a preliminary, general discussion of blighting characteristics in the study area, ECO has been able to render conditioned findings and conclusions. Throughout the report we have identified sources of information and assumptions used in the analysis. Within the limitations imposed by uncertainty and the project budget, ECO, BPS, and PDC have made every effort to check the reasonableness of the data and assumptions and to test the sensitivity of the results of our analysis to changes in key assumptions. ECO, BPS, and PDC acknowledge that any forecast of the future is uncertain. The fact that we evaluate assumptions as reasonable does not guarantee that those assumptions will prevail. We have also described our analytic techniques and their limitations. BPS, PDC, and the Office of Management and Finance have reviewed our analysis for reasonableness. As time passes the results in this report should not be used without correcting for changes in urban renewal policies and procedures, changes in capacity for redevelopment, and market conditions and assessed values.
    [Show full text]
  • The Everyday City: Portland's Changing Neighborhoods
    Portland State University PDXScholar Geography Faculty Publications and Presentations Geography 1987 The Everyday City: Portland's Changing Neighborhoods Carl Abbott Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/geog_fac Part of the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons, and the Urban Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Abbott, C. (1987). "The Everyday City: Portland's Changing Neighborhoods" in Larry W. Price (Ed.), Portland's Changing Landscape (pp. 69-85). This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Geography Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. The Everyday City: ;Portland's Changing Neighborhoods 69 Chapter 5 The Everyday City: Portland's Changing Neighborhoods Carl Abbott Department of Urban Studies and Planning Portland State University Americans like to keep tabs on the typical. Giant corporations search for average cities in which to run market tests for new brands of crunchos and fizzits. The targets tend to run to com­ fortable communities like Rochester, N.Y., Columbus, Ohio, or Des Moines, Iowa. Political commentators also feel the impulse to characterize typical Ameri­ cans. When political pundits Richard Outer Scammon and Ben Wattenberg a few Southeast years back pronounced that the average voter was a 40-year-old housewife liv­ ing in the suburbs of Dayton, Ohio, they were indulging in the national habit of carefully defining the middle Figure 5.1 Portland's residential districts American.
    [Show full text]
  • MT. TABOR PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT Portland Parks and Recreation
    MT. TABOR PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT Portland Parks and Recreation January 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people and organizations contributed to the development of the Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan: Portland Parks and Recreation Gregg Everhart George Lozovoy Zari Santner Cogan Owens Cogan Elaine Cogan Kirsten Greene Citizens Advisory Committee: Ray DeClark, Mt. Tabor Realty Lynn Bailey, Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Brian Bainnson, Center Neighborhood Association Ron Bates, Warner Pacific College Olivia Kulas, Sunnyside Neighborhood Association Sherman Coventry, Bicycle Coalition Chair Laura Gordon, Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Dana Harden, Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church Paul Leistner, Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Gerard Lillie, Audubon Society Nancy Norby, PUP (People Using Parks) Diane Redd, Mt. Tabor Concerts Mt. Tabor Middle School* Lynn Ruark, Western Seminary Blanche Schroeder, Senior and Citizen at Large David Tucker, Montavilla Neighborhood Association Kelly Wellington, Tree Liaison & Richmond Neigh Pat Wisener, Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Parks Chair Paul Zenk, PDX Soap Box Derby Doug Zenn, Citizen at Large Design Team: Walker Macy - Landscape Architects Michael Zilis Kurt Lango Eric Shriner John Kyle Architects - Architects John Kyle Don Trotter KPFF Consulting Engineers - Civil, Structural, Geotechnical Engineers Bob Grummel Susan VanDyke Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Transportation Engineers Beth Wemple Maurita Smyth - Environmental Assessment Robert Mazany & Associates - Arborist Raven Communications
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Name 6. Representation in Existing Surveys
    NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register off Historic Places received ""0 3 1987 Inventory—Nomination Form dateenten^g, g |g8J See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic_____ Schnabel, Charles j. and Elsa, House Number of contributing resources: 1 and or common Same___________________Number of non-contributing resources: 1 2. Location (detached garage) street & number 2375 SW Park Place N/A not for publication city, town Portland N/A vicinity of First Congressional District state Oregon code 41 county Multnomah code 051 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public X occupied agriculture museum X building(s) X private unoccupied commercial park Structure both work in progress educational _ X_ private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object Ji/A in process yes: restricted government scientific N/A being considered __X_ yes: unrestricted industrial "no transportation military other: 4. Owner off Property name : ' Robert E. Clay and Sally R. Leisure street & number 2375 SW Park Place city, town Portland .N/A vicinity of state Oregon 97205 5. Location off Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Multnomah County Recorder street & number 610 SW Alder Street city, town Portland state Oregon 97205 6. Representation in Existing Surveys City of Portland Historic title Resource Inventory_______ has this property been determined eligible? X yes no date 1983 federal __ state __ county -X_ local City of Portland Bureau of Planning.
    [Show full text]
  • ADA Transition Plan Parks Supplement
    Final Draft: August 2015 CITY OF PORTLAND ADA Title II Transition Plan Update - Parks Facilities City of Portland ADA Title II Transition Plan Update- Parks Facilities Final Draft Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................... i Introduction ........................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iv Document Organization .......................................................................................... iv 1.0 Transition Plan Process ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Planning Process ............................................................................................... 1 Facility Evaluations .....................................................................................................2 1.2 Public Engagement ............................................................................................ 3 Public Comment Summary ........................................................................................4 Stakeholders ..............................................................................................................4 Website ......................................................................................................................5 2.0 Transition Plan Methodology............................................................................
    [Show full text]